A Look at James 2

[FaithLikeARock]

How was I supposed to know who you were replying to, though? Next time actually quote the post that you're replying to.

I did. Apparently it didn't work. (I dislike this new system). Still doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't assume. If a post has nothing to do with the post directly above it, I think it would be in your best interest to look up and find out what the post is directed at instead of assuming the poster is an idiot.

 

[cantata]

How would these extra-stringent sex beliefs distinguish a Christian from, say, a Muslim? The world is not divided into Christians and atheists.

 

[GeratTzedek]

TheMenaki: People who know Hebrew far better than either you or I unanimously tell me that in this case it means abomination. Who am I going to believe, the experts, or you?

Just admit you don't believe what scripture teaches. It might be less conventional, but it would have more integrity than trying to twist scripture to say what you want.

 

[HannahBanana]

TheMenaki: People who know Hebrew far better than either you or I unanimously tell me that in this case it means abomination. Who am I going to believe, the experts, or you?

Just admit you don't believe what scripture teaches. It might be less conventional, but it would have more integrity than trying to twist scripture to say what you want.

In other words, you're completely unwilling to trust the word of someone who disagrees with you. Sad.

 

[GeratTzedek]

I see where you are coming from but it is easy to pick out the Christians:

They advocate ideas against sexual license and other forms of such immorality. Of course, on other activities such as war or peace or other highly debatable terms it would certainly be difficult to pick out who is who but that just as much speaks to the heart of disagreement amongst people.

I very much hope you are not jumping to the conclusion that I am a Christian. I am not.

 

[GeratTzedek]

So? As is said by James: "All laws were made by God". No matter what sin you commit, you've committed sin. There is a reason God did away with physical punishment. Because that's all it was. We can not judge God based on physical punishment.

G-d did away with physical punishment???? What are you talking about?

First, are there no courts of justice? Last time I checked, if I steal a car, I risk going to jail.

Second, when Orthodox Jews outnumber Secular Jews in Israel, Jewish Law will replace Secular Law in Israel.

 

[HannahBanana]

I very much hope you are not jumping to the conclusion that I am a Christian. I am not.

No, you're just one of a (thankfully) few Orthodox Jews in this country.

How you can think that the Old Testament is a perfectly fine holy book to follow, with all of its gratuitous examples of violence, hatred, and cruelty, is beyond me.

 

[GeratTzedek]

No, you're just one of a (thankfully) few Orthodox Jews in this country.

How you can think that the Old Testament is a perfectly fine holy book to follow, with all of its gratuitous examples of violence, hatred, and cruelty, is beyond me.

You've only been a Christian a year, according to your profile, so you haven't had a chance for some things to sink in. That Old Testament which you just disparaged was written by the G-d you now serve. It is part of YOUR Bible. When Paul wrote "study to show yourself approved" and "all scripture is given by inspiration" that Old Testament was the ONLY Scriptures in existence. It was the scritpures read and revered and quoted by Jesus. Next time, before you insult it, remember the G-d who gave it.

 

[HannahBanana]

You've only been a Christian a year, according to your profile, so you haven't had a chance for some things to sink in. That Old Testament which you just disparaged was written by the G-d you now serve. It is part of YOUR Bible. When Paul wrote "study to show yourself approved" and "all scripture is given by inspiration" that Old Testament was the ONLY Scriptures in existence. It was the scritpures read and revered and quoted by Jesus. Next time, before you insult it, remember the G-d who gave it.

I'm not a Christian. I'm an agnostic. What the heck are you talking about?

 

[TheManeki]

TheMenaki: People who know Hebrew far better than either you or I unanimously tell me that in this case it means abomination. Who am I going to believe, the experts, or you?

I readily admit I do not know Hebrew. I do know German, and can appreciate the difficulties involved in translating from one language to another -- when translating a word from language A to language B, you don't always find a word in language B that fully matches the original word in language A.

Furthermore, I don't expect you to take my words at face value -- for all you know, I might be a hyperintelligent cat typing away at my keyboard. But I do understand the importance of referencing the work of people who do "know Hebrew far better than either you or I," and cited a book that supports my point. The author, Biblical scholar and retired Episcopalian Bishop John Spong, states that "taboo" is a better word for your "abomination," and that the Levitical purity codes were developed during the Babylonian captivity to prevent Jewish cultural assimilation instead of being developed under the leadership of Moses. If I had the book at work with me, I'd give you a list of scholars he cited. Unfortunately, you'll have to wait until I get home.

Conversely, you don't seem to be into this whole citation thing. You assert that experts "unanimously" agree with you -- except we know that's wrong, since I produced one that disagrees with you. Perhaps this issue is a lot more complicated than you previously understood, and you should take the time to educate yourself better on the subject.

Just admit you don't believe what scripture teaches. It might be less conventional, but it would have more integrity than trying to twist scripture to say what you want.

Ah, one of the favorite responses of people who have trouble supporting their beliefs in a theological debate. Hate to tell you, but it doesn't shut up people like me who do their homework and can support their positions. All it does is underscore the lack of evidence you have for your position.

 

[TheManeki]

By the way, GT, are you going to address my point from post #15 about sterile people who marry subverting God's natural order? I wanted to know if you skipped that one when replying to me because you had conceded the point, or if you just forgot about it.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Sterile people who marry are a LOT closer to the ideal than two of the same sex. For one thing, unless people gossip, there is no reason for anyone to assume they cannot have children. There is no public flipping the bird to procreation.

And no one takes Spong seriously except liberals. Spong is to liberals what Morse is to Creationists.

 

[HannahBanana]

Sterile people who marry are a LOT closer to the ideal than two of the same sex. For one thing, unless people gossip, there is no reason for anyone to assume they cannot have children. There is no public flipping the bird to procreation.

And no one takes Spong seriously except liberals. Spong is to liberals what Morse is to Creationists.

Why are same-sex couples completely exempt from "the ideal"? Seriously, just because they can't procreate and just because they're a man and a man or a woman and a woman instead of a man and a woman doesn't mean that they're less "ideal" than a straight couple. It just means that they're different, and being different isn't always a bad thing, you know. In this situation, it's most definitely a good thing, since, after all, love is never bad.

 

[TheManeki]

Sterile people who marry are a LOT closer to the ideal than two of the same sex. For one thing, unless people gossip, there is no reason for anyone to assume they cannot have children. There is no public flipping the bird to procreation.

Valiant attempt at a save there, but it didn't work. For instance, I know a nice couple who got married in their early seventies, and the bride never had children. It's a little obvious that they can't have children at this age...so are they flipping the bird to procreation? On a more hypothetical note, what about elderly people that get married who never had children in the first place?

And by the way, where exactly are you getting this idea that children is an integral part of marriage? I understand that in some Jewish traditions having children is important, but if you wish to successfully make the claim that your interpretation is the sole correct one, you're going to have to provide some evidence.

And no one takes Spong seriously except liberals. Spong is to liberals what Morse is to Creationists.

Ah, but if you took the time to read my post carefully, you would have seen that Spong did not come up with this idea on his own, but based it on the scholarship of others. (Once again, we see the importance of supporting your ideas with references and evidence.) I'll post a list of the works he cited when I get home. Then you can attempt to dismiss the other authors later to cover the lack of support for your position. ADDENDUM: The Bibliography, courtesy of Amazon's "Search Inside" feature. Type "Doubleday" to get to its first page. Have fun, GT.